Bibliographic record
Abstract
류우큐우(琉球)열도와 제주도는 한반도 • 중국 • 일본으로 둘러싸인 東中國海上에 있는 섬으로서 각각 한반도와 일본열도라는 본토의 주변도서인 점에서 상호 비교될만하다.\n\n금번 양 지역을 대상으로 한 한일 합동조사연구팀은 이러한 데 초점을 맞추어 구성된 것으로 일본측의 律波高志교수와 한국측의 全京秀교수의 주도 아래 인류학. 민속학, 지리학,역사학, 고고학 둥의 여러 분야의 연구진이 참여하게 되었다. 필자는 고고학분야의 일원으로서 조사 1차 연도인 1998년에 오키나와(沖繩) 본 섬을 중심으로 류우큐우 고고학의 연구현황을 살핀 바 있으며 이를 토대로 이 글이 작성된 것이다.\n\n오키나와에서의 고고학조사는 1904년에 鳥居龍藏가 石川市 伊波패총과 石桓島 川平패총에서 시굴조사를 한 것이 그 처음이다. 그로부터 반세기 지난 1950년대부터 多和田眞淳을 비롯한 류우큐우 현지학자들에 의해 자체조사가 이루어지고 琉球列島의 선사문화편년안이 제시되기 시작하였다(當眞嗣-1975 ㆍ 池田榮史1995).\n\nRukyu Islands is divided into three sub-regions, the north include Tane and Yaku Islands, the second Amami and Okinawa Islands, and the last Miyako and Yayeyama Islands.\n\nThe Chronlogica1 Systems of Archaeologica1 Culture in these Islands have been suggested by some Scholars, among which Takemiya's System is accepted as the most appropriate one. Takemiya suggested three-period\n\nsystem, the first shellmound period corresponding to Jomon age of Japan main land, the second shellmound period the Yayoi Age, and Kusuku period the Kofun and Heiyan Age.\n\nSome Jomon and Yaoi culture of Kyushu were imported in these Islands, but the rice cultivation and metallurgy of Yayoi Age seems not to be imported in the first shellmound period. According to Kinoshitas study on shell-made artifacts, the trade of between Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu Island were executed by not Ryukyu Islanders but North Kyushu People.\n\nKofun style tombs similar to those of Kyushu were not discovered in these Islands in second shellmound period. There are some archaeolgica1 data in this period, for example Chinese Tang Dynasty coins, suggests that Ryukyu Island functioned as the intermediate trade place between China and Japan.\n\nThe cultural interaction between Ryukyu Islands and the Korean Peninsula can be identified by archaeological data in the Kusuku and post-Kusuku Period. Those data are the roof tiles with inscription of Korean craftsman and Punchong Porcelain in 14-15th Cent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.022 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".